Is Your Money Safer In Crypto than at the Bank?

[MakeMoneyBtc]

I don't think so. Your crypto wallet can always be hacked, doesn't matter if it is online or you keep it on your hard drive because thieves can break into your house if they know you have cryptocurrencies that worth millions. You can keep huge amounts of money in banks and they are never going to disappear from there, surely not by a robbery.

The bank can't take your money if they are legal and also they can't apply extra taxes. By keeping your money in bitcoin you could get more profit but in the same time you are taking a huge risk.

[kadirmon]

i think my money safer in crypto than at the bank because the bank is likely to go bankrupt.

[ntrader]

Tim Draper: More Secure in Bitcoin Than the Money Sitting in Wells Fargo

Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.

During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.

The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”

These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.

Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”

Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.

If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.

Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.

The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.

Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com

that is very difficult to answer this question, very difficult. but i think bank is safer than crypto but if you hold your money in bank you can not develop your assets. so you must chooce between safty and taking more profit.  

[barlo357]

Yes its more safer to put your money in a bank aside from that it will earn interest even though a little bit, compare to put your money in your wallet as we know now a days there is a lot of hackers spreading here in crypto world we can never tell maybe they will hack all our accounts in split seconds. And one thing in a bank there is always an assurance and insurance.

[nguyenkhanhhung14]

Store money at a bank is more stable and safer than crypto. On the contrary, the profit will be meager. So in my country, there are very few money store people in the bank, only the old people they have thought so, the vast majority of young people use their money to reinvest in another area to increase profits. Larger than the store at bank and profit about 5% annually.

[Oceat]

I do not trust banks, but on a cryptocurrency wallet I'm the only person who is responsible for their own funds, so I prefer a cryptocurrency wallet

That's why there is a certain hardware wallet that you can use for your funds or you could use electrum for your Bitcoin because it has the ability to open your funds through blockchain by using the private key that is being provided by electrum wallet. Most of the banks are services that's why they tend to take something from your funds bit by bit and it is just like they have the full control of your money, unlikely different than blockchain.

[Victorycoin]

I think that is very important to determinate what do you want to do with your money. If you want to save them, than the bank is the best option - very low rewards and very low risk. If you want to earn money and you are looking for profit, than the crypto market is for you. Potential very high profits, but high risk involved, as well.

In addition to that, if you plan to save and anonymity is a concern, than the banks are certain not what you want, their are already good and well thought cryptos out there and using them are actually cost effective. If I have a million dollar in crypto today and also in fiat, am certain, I would be far behind in the value of the fiat currency in no time.

[crypto002]

Well if you are saying to chose between banks and crypto for safety than .According to me  Your Money will be safe in Banks . I guess banks have some kind insurance policy for safety i cant conform it . But keeping money in banks devalue your money in long term. while as investing crypto it dont wont devalue your money in fact it will increase the value and profit is more than banks if you put in monthly scheme which some banks have.

[Abiky]

At some point, money could be much safer in a cryptocurrency than a bank, depending if you follow the right steps to maintain your funds secure. However, for people that are careless about securing their funds, it could be a problem as hackers could easily swipe their money under their noses. On the other hand, Banks also provide security but are subject to Government regulations, can easily be manipulated, and there's the risk of getting your funds frozen (unlike cryptocurrencies) since it's a centralized financial institution.

Therefore, in many ways, your money would be safer in crypto than at the bank itself. Even if crypto is highly volatile, and has many issues within it, it's the still best choice for securing your money against any possible external outcomes. The benefits become greater when you secure your money in decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin instead of centralized ones like Ripple. Just my opinion

[im posible]

If the one who talks is security obviously save money in the bank will be safer. Saving money in crypto is reserved only for people who are willing and able to get out of the comfort zone (out of the box), because saving money in Crypto will provide multiple benefits as well as doubled vigilance as well.

[ronnis.gomes]

It's hard to know where the money is most secure. In the world of computing nothing is 100% safe and money in banks are also not guaranteed security, see the banking crisis of 2008

[memFISTO]

Banks today have become a really safe place to store money. Especially when storing large deposits. But crypto is more attractive for earnings on its investments.

[PoS]

If you hold the private key and have decent backup crypto is the securest. Money in bank is the least secure worse than gold or land.

[Jafri101]

May be no because if its in bank its like insured but in crypto wallets,its not like that because we have seen many hacks in crypto world. I guess ledger wallet is quite safe then other wallets.

[masterzino]

I do not trust banks, but on a cryptocurrency wallet I'm the only person who is responsible for their own funds, so I prefer a cryptocurrency wallet

I am all for crypto, but having money in the bank and having money in cryptocurrency wallet are totally different things.
I am investing here, but I have money on the bank that I use for daily expenses, living cost, buying car, tv, computer, whatever. Money in crypto have a lot different purpose for now.
It is important to have money in the bank, because they are safe there and the amount is not going to be bigger or smaller tomorrow or the day after.

[Sanugarid]

Tim Draper: More Secure in Bitcoin Than the Money Sitting in Wells Fargo

Venture capitalist Tim Draper is bullish on Bitcoin and believes it will reach $250,000 in the next four years.

During a debate hosted by Intelligence Squared and the Adam Smith Society, Tim Draper was asked how Bitcoin compared with his previous tech investments in Hotmail, Skype, and Tesla. He replied bullishly, saying, “Bitcoin will be bigger than all three combined.” However, Draper didn’t leave it at that — he thinks it will be bigger than the iron age, the Renaissance, and the internet and says that the nascent technology will affect the entire world in a faster and more prevalent way than ever imagined.

The Debate: “Bitcoin is more than a bubble and here to stay.”
Backed up by Patrick Byrne (CEO of overstock), Draper took on Financial Times journalist, Gillian Tett, and Professor of Law, Eric Posner, both of whom argued that Bitcoin is indeed a bubble and strongly contested Draper’s claims. Posner and Tett called into question the “strengths” of Bitcoin, arguing that they could be regarded as weaknesses. Posner suggested that the pseudonymization of identity enabled by the technology makes Bitcoin transactions the perfect vehicle for sophisticated criminal transactions. Tett focused on the risk involved with trusting computers with finance as they can be hacked, are prone to faults, and that Bitcoin is a “terrible store of value.”

These arguments won’t be anything new to anyone who has studied the space, and the rebuttals of Draper and Byrne won’t come as a surprise either. The pair acknowledged that Bitcoin was imperfect and drew attention to the fact the technology was designed to be open source so that unforeseen problems can be managed by the community. Byrne also pointed out that although Bitcoin has been “hacked at” more than anything in history, but unlike banks, it has yet to be defeated.

Draper was more brazen in his responses and implored the crowd to use fiat if they were looking to facilitate their own criminal activity as many Bitcoin criminals get caught. The venture capitalist responded to Tett’s admission that she invests in several different fiat currencies by saying, “I’m so much more secure in my Bitcoin than I am in the money that’s sitting there in Wells Fargo.”

Who is right?
The short answer is it’s far too early to tell, but it is good to see the subject being discussed in this manner. Before the debate, Gillian Tett remarked that if both sides of an argument aren’t heard in the same room, on the same day, then the conversations can “go past one another.” It’s probably safe to say she’s right here because, although there is no shortage of media on either side of the argument, real debate on the subject can be difficult to find.

If crypto is going to head down the road Draper expects, its advocates need to be able to argue their case outside of the crypto community, and debate should be welcome as it not only gives both sides the ability to speak but also the ability to listen.

Draper’s comments are to be expected
As crypto enthusiasts, it’s easy to agree when figures like Draper sing the praises of Bitcoin, but we shouldn’t let confirmation bias get in the way of the issues. Draper is a successful investor, and he hasn’t arrived there without making mistakes. He could be wholly right, wrong, or somewhere in between — the latter is most likely. Draper allegedly owns 30,000 BTC, so he has a vested interest in Bitcoin’s success. That does not mean he is wrong, but it does mean his comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Well-reasoned arguments are far more convincing than hype and chest beating because they allow people to make up their own minds.

The emergence of DLT might eclipse the impact of other innovations, but for now, the emphasis is not on critics to prove the crypto community wrong. It’s up to those who champion DLT to convince the world they’re right.

Originally published at cryptodisrupt.com

When it comes on securinng yor money in terms of where you will store it, banks is way safer than on converting all of your wealth into cryptos. First of all, banks are supported by the governments so security is obvious. While given that cryptos are naturally volatile, the changes on its market value from time to time is a risk that would might result into huge profit loss.

[MGmahesh]

I think in the long run my money remains safe, the worrying crypto is when the need comes suddenly but the price is unfriendly will automatically lose the exchange rate. store in the bank and in crypto equally less, its security depends on us who arrange it.

[krodmandoon]

Banks are always safer places to store money and keep them away. But the money in the bank will earn very little, so investing here is a lot more profitable, but riskier.

The bottom line is that the money are safer in banks.

[JasonCroper]

In my opinion the answer is not. When you put money in a bank, you nearly has 100% safety of that. When you put money in crypto, if you lost the private key, hacked, or put in a risk exchange, you have the much more chance to lost your money.

[Walang-kekek]

I think banks are the safest place to save money, because the number of burglaries in banks is very small and since the bank can return your money if known that their fault.  but if you want to double your money with a larger value, crypto is the place to copy it! but here there is no guarantee.